Masters Of War

Come you masters of war You that build all the guns You that build the death planes You that build all the bombs You that hide behind walls You that hide behind desks I just want you to know I can see through your masks. You that never done nothin' But build to destroy You play with my world Like it's your little toy You put a gun in my hand And you hide from my eyes And you turn and run farther When the fast bullets fly. Like Judas of old You lie and deceive A world war can be won You want me to believe But I see through your eyes And I see through your brain Like I see through the water That runs down my drain. You fasten all the triggers For the others to fire Then you set back and watch When the death count gets higher You hide in your mansion' As young people's blood Flows out of their bodies And is buried in the mud. You've thrown the worst fear That can ever be hurled Fear to bring children Into the world For threatening my baby Unborn and unnamed You ain't worth the blood That runs in your veins. How much do I know To talk out of turn You might say that I'm young You might say I'm unlearned But there's one thing I know Though I'm younger than you That even Jesus would never Forgive what you do. Let me ask you one question Is your money that good Will it buy you forgiveness Do you think that it could I think you will find When your death takes its toll All the money you made Will never buy back your soul. And I hope that you die And your death'll come soon I will follow your casket In the pale afternoon And I'll watch while you're lowered Down to your deathbed And I'll stand over your grave 'Til I'm sure that you're dead.------- Bob Dylan 1963

WHO IN THE EFF DO THEY WANT TO USE THESE NEW AND IMPROVED NUKES ON??Does the Pentagon know something that we do not about the fiscal cliff? The MIC will not be denied.It must be fed at all costs. No matter what the consequences are. The MIC will not allow its self to be thrown over the cliff or under the bus.

The Defense [War] Department should be audited and held accountable.Retired Generals and Admirals should not be allowed to become lobbyists for the MIC or their mouth pieces on MSM. Cut the war dept so that Main St. can survive.

Here are some photos of what I saw from where I was staying at my in-laws house, when I was in Korea. I would be insane not to spend the rest of my life there.

As for me? I will be moving my geo-positioining to S/Korea.I will be spending the majority of the rest of my days in S/Korea. I will start living there in 2013 or 2014 at the latest. Having just returned from S/K, I realize that it is time for a change. That change is S/K, and the time is now.By Ronan ThomasLONDON - "The universe is not only stranger than we suppose, it is stranger than we can suppose". These words, attributed to noted British scientist JBS Haldane (1892-1964) also have sharp resonance today on the Korean peninsula.

Next month, South Koreans head to the polls in the nation's 18th presidential election. Conservative Saenuri Party candidate Park Guen-Hye (odds-on favorite) faces off against leftist Moon Jae-in (Democratic United Party). The third candidate, software entrepreneur Ahn Chul-soo (independent), pulled out on November 23 to avoid splitting the liberal vote. On December 19, South Korean voters will determine the future of the country's highest political figurehead until 2017.

Predicting South Korea's longer-term economic and geopolitical

future - say 20 years from now - is a different matter. Such crystal ball-gazing, an inexact science by definition, is either an exercise viewed through a distant mirror at best or an exercise in futility at worst.

Yet it's just the sort of dilemma that professional futurologists, game theorists and academics love to get their teeth into. On November 17, at a major Korean symposium at London University's School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS), a group of such soothsayers modelled and presented scenarios on South Korea's medium term future. Whoever becomes South Korean president next month will find their conclusions by turns encouraging and depressing.

At the SOAS meeting, South Korean, American and British academics and South Korean government representatives jointly considered the shape of things to come for South Korea by the 2030s. As is normal at such gatherings - participants included luminaries from Oxford, Cambridge as well as American and Asian universities- predictions moved from the plausible and mildly eclectic before reaching the outer limits of extreme political and country risk. The consensus: 20 years from now the future for South Korea - as well as for its region - will all be about "soft" versus "hard" landings.

Seoul's soft landing?First the good news for South Korea, as envisaged by the London crystal ball-gazers. Under a "soft landing" scenario, the 2030s may well witness a golden age for a country once regarded as among the poorest in Asia but already in 2012 one of its richest. As South Korea programmes its national Sat Nav for the future this scenario appears eminently possible. The signs are already encouraging. The future does not loom for South Korea, it beckons.

With a history of rapid recovery from the gruelling Korean War (1950-1953), South Korea achieved her own economic miracle over 60 years to become the 13th largest economy in the world today. The South Korean economy weathered the IMF crisis of 1997-1998 and the 2008 international credit crunch to a degree not enjoyed in the United States and Europe to put it mildly. According to the latest South Korean Government statistics the country is already a colossus of information and digital technology, the most-wired nation on earth offering the fastest broadband speeds with deep international market share penetration in consumer electronics, mobile telephony and consumer white goods. South Korea's traditional strengths established in the past 30 years - in automotive, shipbuilding and steel production - continue to underwrite her current buoyant economy

The benign statistics come thick and fast in 2012. South Korea enjoyed an average of 4% GDP growth during 2002-2012 (OECD) and 3% in 2012 (The Economist). In June 2012 it became the 7th nation on earth to enter the 20/50 Club (for nations achieving per capita income of over US$20,000 per annum) to add to its existing membership of the G20 and OECD Committee.

From 2013, for the first time in its history, South Korea will assume non-permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council. Such things matter in the rarefied counsels of the global policy-making elite.

In 2012, South Korea's population of 50 million enjoys an enviable unemployment rate of just 3.1% - the lowest among the OECD countries - versus US and UK headline rates of 7.9% and 7.8% respectively and the Euro area's 11.6%. The nation set to become the world's largest economy within a decade - China - remains South Korea's largest single export market. South Korean Research and Development (R&D) - a key indicator of a nation's ability to service future growth - totaled some US$60 billion during 2007-2012, the third highest amongst OECD countries (OECD and South Korean government figures).

Today, the South Korean government says it aggressively pursues Clean Tech, environmental and business policies designed to foster creativity and innovation. 'Sustainable growth' is the current buzzword among South Korean Ministry of Finance and Economy officials.

Under the most optimistic scenario for the 2030s South Korea maintains or increases current economic growth rates and reforms its educational system to foster creativity and innovation to become a world-beating leader. The arrival point is intoxicating. 20 years from now South Korea hopes to have revolutionized the global biotechnology industry and set the industry standard for genetic testing. It also hopes to become a lead exporter of new green technologies such as fuel cells, eco-expertise and LED manufactured technology to East Asia and beyond. The futurologists' reasoning goes that if China will likely bypass the United States in the next decade to become the leading economy on earth, then Korea has the same potential to leapfrog Japan in its own nimble shift.

Such economic confidence in 2012 is also reinforced by unofficial surveys of South Korean opinion which point to a widely-held popular belief that economic success is made more likely by Asian family values. Add in an optimistic geo-political assumption of no (major) military conflict with North Korea (DPRK) and even peaceful Korean unification, agreed with China along the German model, and South Korean academics say they've seen the future and it works. It's a model based on sustainable globalization but one which also claims to avoid - as in China - the current gap of inequality between South Korea's richest and poorest.

The 'good' road to the 2030s also envisages the successful development of environmentally-friendly urbanization in South Korea. The models here include development of new cities along the lines of the Songdo Industrial Business District, just south of Incheon in western South Korea. This showcase development, designed by an international consortium of commercial architects and engineering companies and linked to Incheon International Airport by a stunning new road bridge, permits a 15 minute commute to high tech, green Songdo. If South Korea can develop sustainably, the argument goes, with new eco-cities funded by a dynamic digital and biotechnology-focused economy, as well as maintaining its current strengths in traditional shipbuilding, green cars and consumer electronics, Korea in 2032 will be in an enviable regional East Asian and global position. READ MORE

Ancient pagan cultures practiced the ritualistic killing of humans for a number reasons: appeasement; retribution; expiation for guilt, an entreat for military victory over an enemy; a seasonal invocation for spring planting or fall harvesting; a contractual quid pro quo between ruler-kings in exchange for the deities’ delivering an enemy or granting a bizarre wish; and, most perniciously, blood had to be drawn in abundance in ritualistic killings so as to teach someone a lesson.

Since 1967 the Israelis have been on a binge trying to teach an incorrigible Palestinian population a lesson into submission and abeyance.

Israel’s most recent heinous attack on Gaza is nothing short of a habitual offender’s using his superior military power to exact vengeance on 1.6 million helpless Gaza citizens in need of a final solution. An already emaciated Gaza must be offered up, yet one more time, as a sacrifice at the altar of anger and vengeance, and human and material loss should be exacted so severely so as to teach the victims a good lesson. Daggers drawn and casting themselves as victims, Netanyahu and Ehud Barak stood at the altar of death with a cheering bevvy of high priests, including Obama, England’s Cameron, France’s Hollande, Germany’s Merkel, and the EU’s Ashton — all of whom stated that Israel has a right to defend itself. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have no right to defend themselves, EVER. And just a few days before murderous hell was rained on the largest open-air prison on the face of this earth, the European Commission held its second International Homeland Security Conference in Tel Aviv which, according to one observer, was merely “more of a bazaar” for a new line of advanced Israeli technological weaponry. Known for their deadly accuracy, the Israeli-made drones that carried the mission over Gaza are perhaps the best advertisement for the Israeli military industrial complex. READ MORE

Rarely does the release of a data-driven report on energy trends trigger front-page headlines around the world. That, however, is exactly what happened on November 12th when the prestigious Paris-based International Energy Agency(IEA) released this year’s edition of its World Energy Outlook. In the process, just about everyone missed its real news, which should have set off alarm bells across the planet.

Claiming that advances in drilling technology were producing an upsurge in North American energy output, World Energy Outlook predicted that the United States would overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the planet’s leading oil producer by 2020. “North America is at the forefront of a sweeping transformation in oil and gas production that will affect all regions of the world,”declared IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven in a widely quoted statement.

In the U.S.,the prediction of imminent supremacy in the oil-output sweepstakes was generally greeted with unabashed jubilation. “This is a remarkable change,”said John Larson of IHS, a corporate research firm. “It’s truly transformative. It’s fundamentally changing the energy outlook for this country.” Not only will this result in a diminished reliance on imported oil, he indicated, but also generate vast numbers of new jobs. “This is about jobs. You know, it's about blue-collar jobs. These are good jobs.”

The editors of the Wall Street Journal were no less ecstatic. In an editorial with the eye-catching headline “Saudi America,” they lauded U.S. energy companies for bringing about a technological revolution, largely based on the utilization of hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) to extract oil and gas from shale rock. That, they claimed, was what made a new mega-energy boom possible. “This is a real energy revolution,” the Journal noted, “even if it's far from the renewable energy dreamland of so many government subsidies and mandates.”

Other commentaries were similarly focused on the U.S. outpacing Saudi Arabia and Russia, even if some questioned whether the benefits would be as great as advertised or obtainable at an acceptable cost to the environment.

While agreeing that the expected spurt in U.S. production is mostly “good news,”Michael A. Levi of the Council on Foreign Relations warned that gas prices will not drop significantly because oil is a global commodity and those prices are largely set by international market forces. “[T]he U.S. may be slightly more protected, but it doesn’t give you the energy independence some people claim,” he told the New York Times.

Some observers focused on whether increased output and job creation could possibly outweigh the harm that the exploitation of extreme energy resources like fracked oil or Canadian tar sands was sure to do to the environment. Daniel J. Weiss of the Center for American Progress, for example, warned of a growing threat to America’s water supply from poorly regulated fracking operations. “In addition, oil companies want to open up areas off the northern coast of Alaska in the Arctic Ocean, where they are not prepared to address a major oil blowout or spill like we had in the Gulf of Mexico.”

Such a focus certainly offered a timely reminder of how important oil remains to the American economy (and political culture), but it stole attention away from other aspects of the World Energy Report that were, in some cases, downright scary. Its portrait of our global energy future should have dampened enthusiasm everywhere, focusing as it did on an uncertain future energy supply, excessive reliance on fossil fuels, inadequate investment in renewables, and an increasingly hot, erratic, and dangerous climate. Here are some of the most worrisome takeaways from the report.

Shrinking World Oil Supply

Given the hullabaloo about rising energy production in the U.S., you would think that the IEA report was loaded with good news about the world’s future oil supply. No such luck. In fact, on a close reading anyone who has the slightest familiarity with world oil dynamics should shudder, as its overall emphasis is on decline and uncertainty.

Take U.S. oil production surpassing Saudi Arabia’s and Russia’s. Sounds great, doesn’t it? Here’s the catch: previous editions of the IEA report and theInternational Energy Outlook, its equivalent from the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), rested their claims about a growing future global oil supply on the assumption that those two countries would far surpass U.S. output. Yet the U.S. will pull ahead of them in the 2020s only because, the IEA now asserts, their output is going to fall, not rise as previously assumed.

This is one hidden surprise in the report that’s gone unnoticed. According to the DoE’s 2011 projections, Saudi production was expected to rise to 13.9 million barrels per day in 2025, and Russian output to 12.2 million barrels, jointly providing much of the world’s added petroleum supply; the United States, in this calculation, would reach the 11.7 million barrel mark.

The IEA’s latest revision of those figures suggests that U.S. production will indeed rise, as expected, to about 11 million barrels per day in 2025, but that Saudi output will unexpectedly fall to about 10.6 million barrels and Russian to 9.7 million barrels. The U.S., that is, will essentially become number one by default. At best, then, the global oil supply is not going to grow appreciably -- despite the IEA’s projection of a significant upswing in international demand.

But wait, suggests the IEA, there’s still one wild card hope out there: Iraq. Yes, Iraq. In the belief that the Iraqis will somehow overcome their sectarian differences, attain a high level of internal stability, establish a legal framework for oil production, and secure the necessary investment and technical support, the IEApredicts that its output will jump from 3.4 million barrels per day this year to 8 million barrels in 2035, adding an extra 4.6 million barrels to the global supply. In fact, claims the IEA, this gain would represent half the total increase in world oil production over the next 25 years. Certainly, stranger things have happened, but for the obvious reasons, it remains an implausible scenario.

Add all this together -- declining output from Russia and Saudi Arabia, continuing strife in Iraq, uncertain results elsewhere -- and you get insufficient oil in the 2020s and 2030s to meet anticipated world demand. From a global warming perspective that may be good news, but economically, without a massive increase in investment in alternate energy sources, the outlook is grim. You don’t know what bad times are until you don’t have enough energy to run the machinery of civilization. Assuggested by the IEA, “Much is riding on Iraq’s success... Without this supply growth from Iraq, oil markets would be set for difficult times.”

Sunday, November 25, 2012

North Gyeongsang Province is full of scenic mountains dotted with ancient Confucian academies. These private academies were established nationwide during the Chosun Dynasty (1392-1897) to equip students with Confucian virtues and knowledge.

Even today, these cultural properties continue to serve their intrinsic function as educational facilities to promote Confucian values. Scholars also use them as venues for memorial rites.

Byeongsan Seowon

Byeongsan Seowon in Andong was built in memory of Ryu Seong-ryong, a renowned Chosun scholar, and is of significant architectural value. The Nakdong River flows in front of the academy, which is framed against the backdrop of low mountains. At the entrance to the compound, stairs lead to a hall that can accommodate over 200 people. Known for its unique layout, this academy features curving wooden pillars and foundation stones that support its pavilion.

Byeongsan Seowon

The use of natural materials shows how nature was revered during this period and architects placed a strong emphasis on designing buildings that integrated harmoniously with their environment.

Oksan Seowon in Gyeongju is home to the largest collection of ancient books among the nation's Confucian academies. During the Japanese invasions of Korea in the late 16th century, as well as during the 1950-53 Korean War, cultural artifacts including some 1,000 literary works now housed in the academy were saved by the efforts of local villagers.

Oksan Seowon

Traditionally in Korea, buildings are constructed facing southwards, where they provide natural access to the most sunlight. But the main buildings of this academy face westwards to afford those inside the best view as it is surrounded by mountains on the other three sides.

Oksan Seowon

The academy's main building is Guindang, where Confucian scholars would gather for academic seminars. This structure is unique as it lacks windows so students are not distracted from their studies.

Dosan Seowon

Korea is now seeking to list a number of these Confucian academies on the UNESCO World Heritage List, including Dosan Seowon in Andong and Sosu Seowon in Yeongju, both in North Gyeongsang Province. The former was built in honor of Yi Hwang, a famous prime minister during the Chosun period, while the latter was the first such academy built during this time.

SEOUL, Nov. 25 (Yonhap) -- South Korea's sovereign rating climbed the most among members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in the last five years, largely due to its fiscal soundness, a report showed Sunday.

Between the end of 2007 and October of this year, the country's credit rating was upgraded by two notches to "Aa3", the fourth-highest level by Moody's Investors Service, according to the data by the Korea Center for International Finance (KCIF).

Fitch Ratings lifted the rating to "AA-" from "A+", with Standard & Poors notching it up to "A+" from "A" over the cited period, the report showed.

South Korea's four-time upgrades by the three global credit appraisers in the last five years trumped other OECD nations, as so-called "triple A" developed nations like the United States lost their top status amid the protracted global downturn, the KCIF said.

Turkey's rating was also notched up on four occasions over the same period but its status remains at junk level, though with a positive outlook, it noted.

Four countries including Chile, Estonia and Israel trailed behind Korea with three-time upgrades, followed by Australia with a single notch-up.

The report said South Korea's fiscal soundness played a vital role in the back-to-back rating upgrades despite the flagging world economy. The country's debt-to-growth ratio stood at 33.5 percent this year, compared with an average of 125.1 percent for Group 7 nations.

"Since Korea suffered from the 1997 Asian financial crisis, we've kept tabs on capital in and outflows, foreign exchange volatility and managed the foreign reserves," said Lee Hee-jeong, an economist at Hyundai Economic Research Institute.

The credit index gauging risk-hedging costs for South Korea recently fell to a level lower than that of Japan and China, reflecting fiscal stability for Asia's fourth-largest economy, the report said.

In contrast, 15 nations including the U.S. and Japan saw their sovereign rating retreat over the cited years, while Germany and 11 others maintained their own. Japan saw its credit rating fall six times by the three major credit appraisers.

Over the tallied period, 5 out of 15 top-notch countries saw their ratings get downgraded, with the U.S. losing its "AAA" rating by Standard & Poor's to "AA+" in August, according to the report. http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/news/2012/11/25/65/0200000000AEN20121125000500320F.HTML

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is the most secretive and “least transparent” trade negotiations in history.

Luckily for the populations and societies that will be affected by the agreement, there are public research organizations and alternative media outlets campaigning against it – and they’ve even released several leaks of draft agreement chapters. From these leaks, which are not covered by mainstream corporate-controlled news outlets, we are able to get a better understanding of what the Trans-Pacific Partnership actually encompasses.

For example, public interest groups have been warning that the TPP could result in millions of lost jobs. As a letter from Congress to United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk stated, the TPP “will create binding policies on future Congresses in numerous areas,” including “those related to labor, patent and copyright, land use, food, agriculture and product standards, natural resources, the environment, professional licensing, state-owned enterprises and government procurement policies, as well as financial, healthcare, energy, telecommunications and other service sector regulations.”

In other words, as promised, the TPP goes far beyond “trade.”

Dubbed by many as “NAFTA on steroids” and a “corporate coup,” only two of the TPP’s 26 chapters actually have anything to do with trade. Most of it grants far-reaching new rights and privileges to corporations, specifically related to intellectual property rights (copyright and patent laws), as well as constraints on government regulations.

The leaked documents revealed that the Obama administration “intends to bestow radical new political powers upon multinational corporations,” as Obama and Kirk have emerged as strong advocates “for policies that environmental activists, financial reform advocates and labor unions have long rejected for eroding key protections currently in domestic laws.”

In other words, the already ineffective and mostly toothless environmental, financial, and labor regulations that exist are unacceptable to the Obama administration and the 600 corporations aligned with the TPP who are giving him his orders.

The agreement stipulates that foreign corporations operating in the United States would no longer be subject to domestic U.S. laws regarding protections for the environment, finance or labor rights, and could appeal to an “international tribunal” which would be given the power to overrule American law and impose sanctions on the U.S. for violating the new “rights” of corporations.

The “international tribunal” that would dictate the laws of the countries would be staffed by corporate lawyers acting as “judges,” thus ensuring that cases taken before them have a “fair and balanced” hearing – fairly balanced in favor of corporate rights above anything else.

A public interest coalition known as Citizens Trade Campaign published a draft of the TPP chapter on “investment” revealing information about the “international tribunal” which would allow corporations to directly sue governments that have barriers to “potential profits.”

Arthur Stamoulis, the executive director of Citizens Trade Campaign, explained that the draft texts “clearly contain proposals designed to give transnational corporations special rights that go far beyond those possessed by domestic businesses and American citizens... A proposal that could have such broad effects on environmental, consumer safety and other public interest regulations deserves public scrutiny and debate. It shouldn’t be crafted behind closed doors.”

Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, a public interest organization, undertook an analysis of the leaked document on investment and explained that the international corporate tribunal would allow corporations to overturn national laws and regulations or demand enormous sums in compensation, with the tribunal “empowered to order payment of unlimited government Treasury funds to foreign investors over TPP claims.”

Even under NAFTA, over $350 million has been paid by NAFTA-aligned governments to corporations for “barriers” to investment “rights,” including toxic waste dumps, logging rules, as well as bans on various toxic chemicals.

Because let’s be clear: for corporations, such regulations and concerns over health, safety and environmental issues are perceived solely as “barriers” to investment and profit. Thus their “government” would sue the foreign government on behalf of the corporation, on the premise that such regulations led to potential lost profits, for which the corporation should be compensated.

The TPP allows the corporations to directly sue the government in question. All of the TPP member countries, except for Australia, have agreed to adhere to the jurisdiction of this international tribunal, an unelected, anti-democratic and corporate-staffed kangaroo-court with legal authority over at least ten nations and their populations.

Further, TPP countries have not agreed on a set of obligations for corporations to meet in relation to health, labor or environmental standards, and thus a door is opened for corporations to obtain even more rights and privileges to plunder and exploit. Where corporate rights are extended, human and democratic rights are dismantled.

One of the most important areas in which the TPP has a profound effect is in relation to intellectual property rights, or copyright and patent laws. Corporations have been strong advocates of expanding intellectual property rights, namely, their intellectual property rights.

Pharmaceutical corporations are major proponents of these rights and are likely to be among the major beneficiaries of the intellectual property chapter of the TPP. The pharmaceutical industry ensured that strong patent rules were included in the 1995 World Trade Organization agreement, but ultimately felt that those rules did not go far enough.

Dean Baker, writing in the Guardian, explained that stronger patent rules establish “a government-granted monopoly, often as long as 14 years, that prohibits generic competitors from entering a market based on another company’s test results that show a drug to be safe and effective.” Baker noted that such laws are actually “the opposite of free trade” since they “involve increased government intervention in the market” and “restrict competition and lead to higher prices for consumers.”

Essentially, what this means is that in poor countries where more people need access to life-saving drugs, and at cheaper cost, it would be impossible for companies or governments to manufacture and sell cheaper generic brands of successful drugs held by multinational corporate patents. Such an agreement would hand over a monopoly of price-controls to these corporations, allowing them to set the prices as they deem fit, thus making the drugs incredibly expensive and often inaccessible to the people who need them most.

As U.S. Congressman Henry Waxman correctly noted, “In many parts of the world, access to generic drugs means the difference between life and death.”

The TPP is expected to increase such corporate patent rights more than any other agreement in history. Generic drug manufacturers in countries like Vietnam and Malaysia would suffer. So would sales of larger generics manufacturers in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, which supply low-cost drugs to much of the world.

While the United States has given up the right to negotiate drug prices with pharmaceutical corporations (hence the exorbitant price for drugs purchased in the U.S.), countries like New Zealand and even Canada to a lesser extent negotiate drug prices in order to keep the costs down for consumers. The TPP will grant new negotiating privileges to corporations, allowing them to appeal decisions by governments to challenge the high cost of drugs or to go with cheap alternatives. Referring to these changes, the U.S. manager of Doctors Without Borders’ Access to Medicines Campaign stated, “Bush was better than Obama on this.”

But that’s not all the TPP threatens: Internet freedom is also a major target.

The Council of Canadians and OpenMedia, major campaigners for Internet freedom, have warned that the TPP would “criminalize some everyday uses of the Internet,” including music downloads as well as the combining of different media works. OpenMedia warned that the TPP would “force service providers to collect and hand over your private data without privacy safeguards, and give media conglomerates more power to send you fines in the mail, remove online content – including entire websites – and even terminate your access to the Internet.”

Also advanced under the TPP chapter on intellectual property rights, new laws would have to be put in place by governments to regulate Internet usage. OpenMedia further warned that, from the leaked documents on intellectual property rights, “there can be heavy fines for average citizens online,” adding: “you could be fined for clicking on a link, people could be knocked off the Internet and web sites could be locked off.”

The TPP, warned OpenMedia founder Steve Anderson, “will limit innovation and free expression.” Under the TPP, there is no distinction between commercial and non-commercial copyright infringement. Thus, users who download music for personal use would face the same penalties as those who sell pirated music for profit.

Information that is created or shared on social networking sites could have Internet users fined, have their computers seized, their Internet usage terminated, or even get them a jail sentence. The TPP imposes a “three strikes” system for copyright infringement, where three violations would result in the termination of a household’s Internet access.

So, why all the secrecy? Corporate and political decision-makers study public opinion very closely; they know how to manipulate the public based upon what the majority think and believe. When it comes to “free trade” agreements, public opinion has forced negotiators into the darkness of back-room deals and unaccountable secrecy precisely because populations are so overwhelmingly against such agreements.

An opinion poll from 2011 revealed that the American public has – just over the previous few years – moved from “broad opposition” to “overwhelming opposition” toward NAFTA-style trade deals.

A major NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll from September of 2010 revealed that “the impact of trade and outsourcing is one of the only issues on which Americans of different classes, occupations and political persuasions agree,” with 86% saying that outsourcing jobs by U.S. companies to poor countries was “a top cause of our economic woes,” with 69% thinking that “free trade agreements between the United States and other countries cost the U.S. jobs.” Only 17% of Americans in 2010 felt that “free trade agreements” benefit the U.S., compared to 28% in 2007.

Because public opinion is strongly – and increasingly – against “free trade agreements,” secrecy is required in order to prevent the public from even knowing about, let alone actively opposing, agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership. And this, as U.S. Trade Representative Kirk explained, is a very “practical” reason for all the secrecy.

Part III of Marshall's investigative series on the Trans-Pacific Partnership will appear Monday.

Visitor Map

Who-When, Where,How ? ? ? ?

Fair Use Disclaimer, US Copyright Law

This blog may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. All posts are clearly attributed by name and active link to the original author and website. I am making such material available on a non-profit basis for educational, research and discussion purposes in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in US Copyright Law, Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. Consistent with this notice you are welcome to make 'fair use' of anything you find on this web site. However, if you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.More information at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.